Tinto Maps #9 - 5th of July 2024 - Carpathia and the Balkans

[purplephoton]

Now, does this text say "The Romanians inhabited the port cities sometime during the 14th century"?
Say it with me kids: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Does this text say: "Wallachia's princes of the House of Basarab extended their authority over this territory in the 14th century?"
Say it with me kids: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS.

Because to him "Wallachia's princes of the House of Basarab extended their authority over this territory in the 14th century" must somehow (by speculation) translate to "The Romanians inhabited the port cities sometime during the 14th century".

Ok, if you want to copy other people's format, two can play that game.

Now, does this text say "After the 1240's, Romanians inhabited the surrounding hills and port cities"?
Say it with me kids: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Does this text say: "Nogai Tatars, who had settled herds in the region after the 1240's, inhabited the steppe"?
Say it with me kids: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS.

 

[ibvfteh]

Ok, so numerous people lived in Moldavia in the Dark Ages, that is known.

Proof? it is known is not a proof. if it is known it should be proven no?

They are.

In the year 938, Ibn al-Nadīm published the work Kitāb al-Fihrist (The Index of Arab Books) in which he mentioned "the Turks, Bulgarians, Vlachs" (using the term Blagha' for the Vlachs) and other peoples living north of the Danube Delta.

specific quote? I can not find this mention about living north of the Danube Delta.

this is the translation of the book that is quoted here

I can not find anything about the Danube Delta.
even Wikipedia doesn't do that claim

Strange that it does mention Bulgars, who live on the other side of the Danube, close to where Wallachia is.

Another document, by the Arab chronicler Mutahhar al-Maqdisi, who lived in the 10th century, mentioned among the neighbors of the Turkic peoples the Slavs, Waladj (Vlachs), Alans, Greeks, and other peoples.

no territorial claims. Romanians can live anywhere. Wallachia and Transylvania were also neighbours to the Turks, at least as close as the Greeks

In 1040, Casimir, Duke of Poland, formed an alliance with Yaroslav the Wise, Duke of Kiev, and received 1,000 foot soldiers to reclaim his lost territories in Poland. On this occasion, an army composed of Ruthenians, Prussians, Dacians, and Getae (possibly Romanians) is mentioned.

no territorial claims.

All of those claims do not prove Romanians lived in Moldavia, they poove that Romanians existed. But they could have lived anywhere and still be part of those dynamics

In 1068, the Vlachs/Romanians from Moldova and the Pechenegs led by Osul took part in a raiding campaign in Transylvania and Hungary, which ended with the Battle of Chiraleș in Transylvania, where they were defeated. The events are recorded in a Russian chronicle.

Vlachs/Romanians from Moldova - can not find proof of this

In 1070, the Vlachs/Romanians from Moldova, along with the Pechenegs and Ruthenians, were involved in an expedition by King Bolesław of Krakow. The campaign is commented on by the Polish chronicler Długosz.

Vlachs/Romanians from Moldova - can not find proof of this

On the border between Halych and the Brodniks, in the 11th century, a Viking by the name of Rodfos was killed in the area by Romanian Vlachs who supposedly betrayed him.

let's look at the quote to check.

Rodvisl and Rodälv raised this stone for their three sons. This one after Rodfos. He /Rodfos/ was betrayed by the Blokumenn on his journey. God help the soul of Rodfod. God betray those who betrayed him.

Unfortunately, no position is given all I can find is "was killed north of the Danube by the Blakumenn". Wallachia is north of the Danube and is debated to be the Blokumennland.

In 1164, the future Byzantine Emperor Andronikos I Komnenos, was taken prisoner by Romanian Vlachs around the same region.

this one is good. I am sad you do not even try to provide quotes but here:

book

this is unfortunately the end of the line.

Doesn't say about the population of the region a lot, but is a good find nevertheless.

There is no mention of the Bolokhovians or of the Berladnici after the 13th century. By contrast, there are mentions of Romanians.

because they have migrated from the mountains.

Consider that we have Romanians mentioned in Moldavia in: 938, 1040, 1068, 1070, 1164. It's reasonable to assume somewhere between that period.

here you assume - this is why it is your opinion

In blue, he is talking specifically about the region around the Molda river. As opposed to all of Moldavia. The country Moldavia being named after the river. Then they went to were is today Suceava. Found a Russian from Țara Leșască. He told them there is good hunt there, so they went with their people there.

I myself said that they went there and founded some villages.

But fouding some villages =/= came from the Eastern Carpathians in big enough numbers to form a majority after 1337.

You just picking here. Founding villages, Having no other sources of migration from the mountains since the Dark Ages, mentioning "founding villages" hundreds of times does.

The source doesn't say that this is the event that lead to a Romanian majority in all of Moldavia, as there previously wasn't. Which is what you are saying.

2.
John of Küküllő mentioned that Louis I's army often invaded Moldavia, but the "number of Vlachs inhabiting that land increased, transforming it into a country".[22]
I see this as an indication of a great change tbh.

This only prove that Bogdan came with people from Maramures. Which, yes, he did. But that doesn't automatically prove that (a) Moldavia previously had a Romanian minority and (b) these numbers were big enough to turn Moldavia from Romanian minority to Romanian majority.

You may believe that I deny those events, I don't. I simply don't see how those events automatically prove (a) & (b).

big enough - to populate lands of nomadic people, or other types of sparsity a lot of men are not required.

The source says they went from Maramures to Moldavia, which they did.
The source doesn't say Romanians weren't already there.

It also doesn't say they were there! If you speculate then go full with it. Why you won't mention your own people?

It doesn't say their Romanians that they came with turned Moldavia into a region with Romanian majority.

It does say they came.

But I seriously doubt a Voivevode like Dragos and Bogdan had enough Romanian population in Maramures to populate an area the size of Moldavia even if empty, let alone if it had other ethnicities to become a majority.
And still remained the majority in Maramures (so not all of them) as the Voivodship of Maramures kept existing and being ruled by Dragos' descendents up until the early 15th century.

fair, but speculative

We have them mentioned in 938, 1040, 1068, 1070, 1164. Long before Dragos and Bogdan.

Mentioned. Without regional descriptions except for 1 case.
Mentioned. Not proven a majority

What is this everything? Dragos & Bogdan says only how their people went there. The mentions of Romanian Vlachs in 938, 1040, 1068, 1070, 1164 in Moldavia contradict it.

No, as it does not have regional descriptions. Almost all of the cases could have happened with Vlach population of Moldavia which my map also includes. or even with population from Transylvania or Wallachia

Regarding your map:

You mentioned that you used Bolokhovians as a placeholder for Slavs after 1257. But what evidence to we have for Slavs in these regions you mentioned as "Bolokhovians" ? This is the map you made:

Have you looked into this source?

This map shows the approximate territories of different people (Tara - Latin: terra - territory)
Bolohoveni(Bolokhovians) are shown on the Eastern side between Prut and Dniester
It also shows Românilor, the territory of the Romanian(Moldavian) population.

from:
Ovidiu Drimba - History of Romanian culture and civilization, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Pedagogică, Bucureşti, 1987, vol.2, pg.404
Română:
Ovidiu Drimba - Istoria culturii şi civilizaţiei româneşti, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Pedagogică, Bucureşti, 1987, vol.2, pag.404

View attachment 1217823
Based on this:
View attachment 1217822
But the red lines seem to be drawn random. What's the reason for giving almost half of Moldavia to Slavs in 1337 based on Bolokhovians being on the northern top of of the map in 1257?

Well, I think I agree that I might have been too liberal with them on the North. However, with you painting the South, I strongly disagree. The map should still represent everyone who lived in those lands.

Brodnici, Berladnici, Jasz, Tatars.

Unfortunately, your proposal disregards their existence entirely, painting all of them Moldavian just because the last time they were mentioned was not even a century ago. Moldavians are mentioned In 1164 by your points

In 1164, the future Byzantine Emperor Andronikos I Komnenos, was taken prisoner by Romanian Vlachs around the same region.

But they did remain present.

There is no proof that Romanians have lived in the lands of Brodnici, Berladnici, Jasz or Tatar. Therefore I claim that those people have stayed on their lands until Moldavians migrated here.

What did happen then, that all of them disappeared and Moldavians became the majority there? No comment from you. Just Vanished and Moldavians appeared.

Where as I did in fact preserve the Slavs north of Moldavia in my interpretation of your sources, the Halychian Slavs in 1337 that used to be the Bolokhovians in 1257.
View attachment 1217824
So what is the source based on which you made those exact borders for the Bolokhovians in 1257 and later Slavs in 1337 as a continuation?
My borders are based on the toponyms map you provided

The toponyms map is irrelevant for the case of Moldavians. You have proven that.

If the cities were founded by Dragos and Bogdan, It skews the research to the Romanian side, as the research directed at cities after the 14th century.

I myself said that they went there and founded some villages.

Absolutely, never said they build the village for fun. They build them to live there.

So this map can not be used to draw the Moldavian population.

+ what Britannica says about Bukovina and wikipedia says about Bukovina.

They say about modern Bukovina, in that time a lot of stuff happened. So it is not a proof at all

Furthermore, for the southern part, regarding the Crimean part. The actual extent of the borders aside, the Brodnici and Benlandici were long gone in 1337, even longer gone than Bolokhovians. While Hanesti is not on your cultural map.

tell me about Hanesti except they are on the map?

While I merely used this regarding the Budjak region. It's far closer to 1337 than the time of the Brodnici and Benlandici.
View attachment 1217827

This is Wikipedia. It is written by someone and does not contain any source for the claim. I saw on Wikipedia people claim that human name influences their future life. There were also no proof for that.

So from where does this come? Who mentions that and where? It’s just a plain text with no basis.

 

[purplephoton]

In fact, you know, what, since we're making dumb and unfounded accusations that people are the nationalities they're actually not, I wanna get in on it.
Here's my Zeprion-style dumb and unfounded accusation of Zeprion:

I have posted what, 6 sources in this thread that aren't in English? Two in Hungarian that I had ArVass verify, two in Ukrainian, one in Russian, one in Bulgarian. By Zeprion's logic, I must be "Ukrainian" since I posted sources in Ukrainian.

But what about Zeprion himself? Is he really Romanian? Is his sample size of one shitty map enough big enough to call him Romanian?
Maybe he is. But I have noticed three interesting behaviors from him.

First, he makes unsubstantiated claims using biased evidence with the goal being to make it difficult for people to agree on facts. You know where else I have seen this behavior? Russian media.
Second, he accuses other people of doing exactly the kind of unforward behavior that he is engaging in. You know where else I have seen this sort of projection? Russian government.
Third, he has so far only accepted two pieces of evidence against the idea that all of Moldavia was Romanian. You know who created one of those two pieces of evidence? A Russian professor.

Based on these two factors, as a "Ukrainian", I "see right through" Zeprion and "accuse" him of being "Russian", and pretending to be an over-the-top ridiculous Romanian nationalist in order to sow distrust of Romanians as a whole.
You know where else I have seen people pretending to be something they're not in order to sow disagreement? Russian trolls. Further proving my point.

---

@Zeprion now do you see how ridiculous your accusation that everyone here is part of some Russo-Hungarian conspiracy sounds?

 

[Linbot#6018]

Maybe the devs should create "Hungarian historiography" and "Romanian historiography" game settings... I'm starting to get dizzy just reading through all this debate, you know

 

[Zeprion]

It's paranoia to say that someone who posted one source in Russian is likely Russian. The language has about 260 million speakers, there are roughly another 100 million Slavs who won't speak Russian but will be able to read/understand enough to read the sources, and there are another few hundred million internet users with access to Google Translate. Even excluding the last group, the chances of a Russian speaker being Russian are roughly 40%, which falls well below the threshold of likely.

The guy who posted in Russian had the username RegnumRusae.

Ok, if you want to copy other people's format, two can play that game.

Now, does this text say "After the 1240's, Romanians inhabited the surrounding hills and port cities"?
Say it with me kids: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Does this text say: "Nogai Tatars, who had settled herds in the region after the 1240's, inhabited the steppe"?
Say it with me kids: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS.

And what is the full sentence right after: "Nogai Tatars, who had settled herds in the region after the 1240's, inhabited the steppe"?
Say it with me kids: WHILE ROMANIANS INHABITED THE SURROUNDING HILLS AND THE PORT CITIES.

 

[Ispil]

Maybe the devs should create "Hungarian historiography" and "Romanian historiography" game settings... I'm starting to get dizzy just reading through all this debate, you know

I'm pretty sure we can find some Russian historiographers who have their own, distinct take on all of this as well.

 

[purplephoton]

The guy who posted in Russian had the username RegnumRusae.

And what is the full sentence right after: "Nogai Tatars, who had settled herds in the region after the 1240's, inhabited the steppe"?
Say it with me kids: WHILE ROMANIANS INHABITED THE SURROUNDING HILLS AND THE PORT CITIES.

First, "WHILE ROMANIANS INHABITED THE SURROUNDING HILLS AND THE PORT CITIES." is not a full sentence.
Second, and more importantly:
It does not say that Romanians inhabited those port cities for the entire duration of the Tatars' stay. If anything, the fact that the Romanians and Tatars are mentioned after the Wallachians and Moldavians took over suggests that it happened after that chronologically - i.e. that Romanians were there after Moldavia took over. Which we know to be true because Moldavia colonized the area with Romanians. The 1240s are only mentioned to give context as to why the Tatars were in the area. If this wasn't the case, this would be worded something like "In the 1240s, Romanians inhabited the port cities while the Tatars settled herds in the region". But the fact that the entire phrase with the date is entirely enclosed with another phrase about the Tatars suggests that it's only relevant for the Tatars and not for the Romanians.
So you're left with Romanians living in the port cities at some point while Nogais lived in the nearby steppe. So at some point between 1241 and 1772. Which we already know to be true since Romanians were there by 1400, and it also matches up with the previous part being in the late 1300s and early 1400s, but that doesn't tell us anything new about 1337.

This is normal English phrasing. Of course, it's possible that the random person who wrote this wikipedia paragraph was also not very experienced with English and didn't know this; in which case we would have to check their source for clarification... oh wait, they didn't provide one.

 

[Makkasag]

in which case we would have to check their source for clarification... oh wait, they didn't provide one

It may be just me, but I think I am sensing a pattern

 

[Zeprion]

First, "WHILE ROMANIANS INHABITED THE SURROUNDING HILLS AND THE PORT CITIES." is not a full sentence.
Second, and more importantly:
It does not say that Romanians inhabited those port cities for the entire duration of the Tatars' stay. If anything, the fact that the Romanians and Tatars are mentioned after the Wallachians and Moldavians took over suggests that it happened after that chronologically - i.e. that Romanians were there after Moldavia took over. Which we know to be true because Moldavia colonized the area with Romanians. The 1240s are only mentioned to give context as to why the Tatars were in the area. If this wasn't the case, this would be worded something like "In the 1240s, Romanians inhabited the port cities while the Tatars settled herds in the region". But the fact that the entire phrase with the date is entirely enclosed with another phrase about the Tatars suggests that it's only relevant for the Tatars and not for the Romanians.
So you're left with Romanians living in the port cities at some point while Nogais lived in the nearby steppe. So at some point between 1241 and 1772. Which we already know to be true since Romanians were there by 1400, and it also matches up with the previous part being in the late 1300s and early 1400s, but that doesn't tell us anything new about 1337.

This is normal English phrasing. Of course, it's possible that the random person who wrote this wikipedia paragraph was also not very experienced with English and didn't know this; in which case we would have to check their source for clarification... oh wait, they didn't provide one.

First, the full sentence is this one:

Nogai Tatars, who had settled herds in the region after the 1240s, inhabited the steppe, while Romanians inhabited the surrounding hills and the port cities.

This is the full sentence ^.

Second, it says that while the Tatars inhabited the steeps, the Romanians inhabited the surrounding hills and the port cities. Romanians and Tatars are mentioned after the Wallachians and Moldavians, because in the case of Romanians and Tatars they speak about populations, in case of Wallachians and Moldavians they speak about states. It is impossible to suggests that it happened after that chronologically because when speaking of states goes to 14th century, 15th century, then when switching to talking about population goes down to 1240. The 1240s gives context since when the Tatars are in this area 1240 and where the Romanians were (in the hills and port cities) when the Tatars were in these areas. The entire phrase with the date is not entirely enclosed with another phrase about the Tatars, otherwise they would use 2 different sentences. It would have been redundant to say "Nogai Tatars, who had settled herds in the region after the 1240s, inhabited the steppe, while in 1240s Romanians inhabited the surrounding hills and the port cities".
So you're left with Romanians living in the port cities while Nogais lived in the nearby steppe after 1240s. Which tells us that in 1337 likely Romanians and Tatars still lived in the same formula, with Tatars on the steppe and Romanians in hills and towns.

This is normal English grammatical structure. If you desire an entirely enclosed phrase you make a new sentence. The fact it isn't a different sentence but part of it shows that the context is where the Tatars and the Romanians lived in 1240s.

 

[purplephoton]

Guys, I think I found someone with actual Russian bias.

 

[Zeprion]

You just picking here. Founding villages, Having no other sources of migration from the mountains since the Dark Ages, mentioning "founding villages" hundreds of times does.

Picking? This was my point since day 1.

Maybe there wasn't a migration since they already migrated there since 800-900? We only have the migration of a Kneaz and Voivod which you yourself said it's fair that it's not enough to populate the country.

How come you're not just picking here? Since according to you there has to be such a big migration around 1337. Why does there has to be one?

2.
John of Küküllő mentioned that Louis I's army often invaded Moldavia, but the "number of Vlachs inhabiting that land increased, transforming it into a country".[22]
I see this as an indication of a great change tbh.

It is an indication of a great change indeed. But it's still doesn't say that this is the event that lead to a Romanian majority in all of Moldavia, as there previously wasn't. Which is what you are saying.

big enough - to populate lands of nomadic people, or other types of sparsity a lot of men are not required.

This is just speculative.

At the end of the the, this source you used only prove that Bogdan came with people from Maramures. Which, yes, he did. But that doesn't automatically prove that (a) Moldavia previously had a Romanian minority and (b) these numbers were big enough to turn Moldavia from Romanian minority to Romanian majority.

You may believe that I deny those events, I don't. I simply don't see how those events automatically prove (a) & (b).

It also doesn't say they were there! If you speculate then go full with it. Why you won't mention your own people?

Because the focus of the Letopisetul Tarii Moldovei are the events not the population? What population in Moldova before Bogdan and Dragos is mentioned in Letopisetul Tarii Moldovei? There is nothing on the locations of other populations you added on your map.

It does say they came.

But it doesn't say that their Romanians that they came with turned Moldavia into a region with Romanian majority.

fair, but speculative

If this is fair but speculative explain it to me how it was possible:

But I seriously doubt a Voivevode like Dragos and Bogdan had enough Romanian population in Maramures to populate an area the size of Moldavia even if empty, let alone if it had other ethnicities to become a majority.
And still remained the majority in Maramures (so not all of them) as the Voivodship of Maramures kept existing and being ruled by Dragos' descendents up until the early 15th century.

Mentioned. Without regional descriptions except for 1 case.
Mentioned. Not proven a majority

How are all the other people from your map a proven majority?

What sources do you have to have them prove to be a majority?

Since you said that you do not know the numbers?

Sounds a lot like just speculation.

No, as it does not have regional descriptions. Almost all of the cases could have happened with Vlach population of Moldavia which my map also includes. or even with population from Transylvania or Wallachia

Have you looked into this source?

This map shows the approximate territories of different people (Tara - Latin: terra - territory)
Bolohoveni(Bolokhovians) are shown on the Eastern side between Prut and Dniester
It also shows Românilor, the territory of the Romanian(Moldavian) population.

from:
Ovidiu Drimba - History of Romanian culture and civilization, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Pedagogică, Bucureşti, 1987, vol.2, pg.404
Română:
Ovidiu Drimba - Istoria culturii şi civilizaţiei româneşti, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Pedagogică, Bucureşti, 1987, vol.2, pag.404

If this was your source, shouldn't the split be something like this:

Rather than the one you have made?

What is your reason for Halychian and Crimean being that big and Moldavian being just a tiny piece?

You said it yourself that you do not know the numbers.

What evidence do you have for those specific Bolokhovian borders?

What evidence do you have for those specific Crimean border?

It does look like the borders you made were just speculation.

Well, I think I agree that I might have been too liberal with them on the North. However, with you painting the South, I strongly disagree. The map should still represent everyone who lived in those lands.

Brodnici, Berladnici, Jasz, Tatars.

Unfortunately, your proposal disregards their existence entirely, painting all of them Moldavian just because the last time they were mentioned was not even a century ago. Moldavians are mentioned In 1164 by your points

The Jasz should exist. I only excluded them because I used your toponyms map which excluded them.

The Tatars are there in 1337 right upwards of Cetatea Alba.

Brodnici and Berladnici are no longer mentioned. But Moldavians are mentioned shortly afterwards all over the country. While this:

Is just speculation.

On the other hand, Brodnici and Berladnici not being ever heard of again is not speculation.

But they did remain present.

What source do you have that they did remain present?

Or that they were ever a majority in those regions in the first place?

As they could have easily been the ruling class. A warlike minority with control over the others.

There is no proof that Romanians have lived in the lands of Brodnici, Berladnici, Jasz or Tatar. Therefore I claim that those people have stayed on their lands until Moldavians migrated here.

What did happen then, that all of them disappeared and Moldavians became the majority there? No comment from you. Just Vanished and Moldavians appeared.

So in essence speculation?

There is no proof that Brodnici or Berladnici survived up until 1337, as they were never heard from again, where as Romanians were later heard of in those lands. With no mention of migration in those specific lands.

Therefore I claim that in 1337, about 10 years before we have Romanians in the same lands that about a century ago belong to the Brodnici, Berladnici, Jasz or Tatar. We are more likely to find Romanians.

The toponyms map is irrelevant for the case of Moldavians. You have proven that.

If the cities were founded by Dragos and Bogdan, It skews the research to the Romanian side, as the research directed at cities after the 14th century.

So this map can not be used to draw the Moldavian population.

I agree that toponyms are not a good source in general of determining the current population.

But for the case of Slavic or Tatar toponyms, how do you not know that the Romanians came from the mountains some centuries later, simply moved there and lived in those cities/towns, but the toponyms remained in their original Slavic/Tatar, despite not having Slavic/Tatar population for centuries?

It is speculation yes, but your migration is equally speculative.

They say about modern Bukovina, in that time a lot of stuff happened. So it is not a proof at all

No, it's not about modern Bukovina.

I know the situation is the same in modern Bukovina. But those sentences from Bukovina on Britannica and Bukovina on Wikipedia are not about modern Bukovina.

tell me about Hanesti except they are on the map?

Well, you provided the map. And the map has a light green Romanian around hanesti, so?

Tell me about Brodnici and Benlandici in 1337, except that they are on the map. A map which is meant to reflect the 9th-13th century. So a lot earlier than 1337.

Why not use this French maps instead? from 1200-1359, thus including 1337.

Histoire de Moldavie

Histoire de la Moldavie (principauté) Moldavie Région historique 500 ans entre 1359 et 1859

fr-academic.com

According to this french encyclopedia:

The formation of the Moldovan Voivodeship​

In 1247 , the Diploma of the Knights of St. John describes a Wallachian voivode east of the Carpathians , tributary to the Tatar Khan of the Golden Horde . In 1277 , while the voivodes Litovoi and Bărbat were fighting for their autonomy , the Moldavians of northern Moldavia ( knesate of Onut , near Hotin ) came into conflict with their Ruthenian overlords in the neighboring principality of Galicia . Those of southern Moldavia , on the other hand ( knesate of Bârlad ) remained faithful to their alliances with the Galicians and Hungarians , who helped them defend themselves against Tatar raids .

The retreat of the Tatars from the Golden Horde created more favourable conditions for a process of unification of the cnesates . In the early years of the 14th century , German chronicles mention a country of the Wallachians ( Wlachenlant ) led by a voivode in the north of Moldavia .

In the 13th century Moldavia was a federation of " cnesates " ( vassal duchies of Galicia and / or Hungary ) : Onutu - Hotin , Străşineţ , Baia , Neamţu , Soroca and its troglodyte monasteries , Hansca , Aski ( today Iaşi or Jassy , which takes its name from Iasses ) and Bârlad . Hungary was also present in the future Moldavia with the Csangos settlers , near the Siret River , and posted garrisons on the path of the Tatar invasions : this is the origin of toponyms such as Miclăuşeni ( Miklósfalu ) , Orhei ( Varhély ) , Chişinău ( kis - jenő : the small spring ) or Ciobruci ( Russified form of Ciubărciu , from csupór , the churn ) . The trade route along the Siret , which connected northern Europe to the mouths of the Danube , played an important role in the economic and political development of these territories . The cities Moldavian lands developed , including Baia ( civitas Moldaviae ) , mentioned in the 14th century as a fief of Dragoş de Bedeu , a voivode from Maramureş , vassal of the King of Hungary , Louis of Anjou . The latter had organized this fief in the basin of the Moldova River , following an expedition in 1343-1345 to the east of the Carpathians , with a view to strengthening Hungarian influence against the Tatars and the Galicians .

But the Moldavians united against Dragoş and preferred Bogdan of Dolha , also a voivode from Maramureş but opposed to Hungarian suzerainty . After several years of guerrilla warfare , in 1359 , Bogdan was recognized by the Moldavians as prince in place of Dragoş 's descendants , who had to return to Maramureş . The city of Baia became the capital of the federation in 1359 under the scepter of Bogdan , now called Bogdan I the Founder ( Bogdan Întemeietorul ) . This federation of cnesates then became a Voivodate governed by Voivodes , while the former cnesates became counties ( ţinuturi ) , governed by the great boyar families .

This grouping in the 14th century of the Moldavian cnesates located between the Carpathians , the Dniester and the Black Sea , vassals of Galicia or the Tatars in the 13th century , is parallel to that which took place in neighboring Wallachia , whose cnesates were vassals of Hungary . All these small duchies had taken up the colors ( gold and sinople with six bands ) of the " Regnum Valachorum " ( 1186-1261 , founded by the Deleanu , Caloian and Asan dynasties in present - day southern Romania , Bulgaria and Macedonia ) of which they considered themselves the heirs [ 1 ] . First called Bogdania or Bogdano - Wallachia , the principality of Moldavia extends from the Carpathians to the Dniester and appears on the map of Europe as a sovereign country .

The Hungarian King Louis I the Great did not willingly give up his sovereignty over the Moldavian country east of the Carpathians , and what had happened in 1330 in Wallachia was repeated in 1364-1365 in Moldavia . Louis I of Hungary organized an expedition to subdue Moldavia and replace Bogdan , but he did not succeed , the Moldavian state having become economically consolidated , better organized politically and militarily , and increasingly developed demographically .

Thus, according to this French encyclopedia:

- In 1247 , the Diploma of the Knights of St. John describes a Wallachian voivode east of the Carpathians , tributary to the Tatar Khan of the Golden Horde. (So we have 1 Vlach ruler mentioned, but not named, in 1247, in Moldavia)
- The Moldavians of northern Moldavia (knesate of Onut , near Hotin) came into conflict with their Ruthenian overlords in the neighboring principality of Galicia. (So we also have Onut and Hotin as "the Moldavians" described here)
- Meanwhile, those of southern Moldavia, on the other hand ( knesate of Bârlad ) remained faithful to their alliances with the Galicians and Hungarians , who helped them defend themselves against Tatar raids. (So 1 more Vlach ruler in the south of Moldavia at Barlad)

These are before Dragos and Bogdan.

- In the 13th century Moldavia was a federation of " cnesates " ( vassal duchies of Galicia and / or Hungary ) : Onutu - Hotin , Străşineţ , Baia , Neamţu , Soroca and its troglodyte monasteries , Hansca , Aski ( today Iaşi or Jassy , which takes its name from Iasses ) and Bârlad.

But the Moldavians united against Dragoş and preferred Bogdan of Dolha , also a voivode from Maramureş but opposed to Hungarian suzerainty . After several years of guerrilla warfare , in 1359 , Bogdan was recognized by the Moldavians as prince in place of Dragoş 's descendants , who had to return to Maramureş . The city of Baia became the capital of the federation in 1359 under the scepter of Bogdan , now called Bogdan I the Founder ( Bogdan Întemeietorul ) . This federation of cnesates then became a Voivodate governed by Voivodes , while the former cnesates became counties ( ţinuturi ) , governed by the great boyar families.

Notice it says the Moldavians.

Mystery solved I guess.

Sources:

1. ↑ Nick . Serban Tanaşoca , Romanian Heraldry , Anuarul Inst . HAS . D. Xenopol , Iasi , 1997
2. ↑ Bugaï , Nikolaï F. : Deportation in Ukraine , Belorus in Moldova // Lageria , принудительный труд и депортация , Германия , Эссен , 1999 : The Deportation of the peoples of Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova . Camps , forced labour and deportation . Ed .: Dittmar Dahlmann and Gerhard Hirschfeld . - Essen 1999 , pp .: 567-581
3. ↑ Alain Ruzé : Moldova , L' Harmattan , Paris , 1997 , ISBN 2-7384-6018-6
4. ↑ The map gallery is a synthesis of the " Westermann Grosser Atlas zur Weltgeschichte ", 1985 , ISBN 3 - 14 - 100919 - 8 , of the " DTV Atlas zur Weltgeschichte " , 1987 translated by Perrin , ISBN 2 - 7242 - 3596 - 7 , of the “ Putzger historischer Weltatlas Cornelsen " 1990 , ISBN 3-464-00176-8, from the " Atlas of the Peoples of Central Europe " by André and Jean Sellier at La Découverte , 1992 , ISBN 2-7071-2032-4 , with detailstaken in the Történelmi atlasz of the Hungarian Academy , 1991 , ISBN 963-351422-3 CM and in the historico - geographic Atlas of the Romanian Academy ,1995, ISBN 973-27-0500-0 .

This is Wikipedia. It is written by someone and does not contain any source for the claim. I saw on Wikipedia people claim that human name influences their future life. There were also no proof for that

I guess this must be the source?
C. Stamati, "Despre Basarabia și cetățile ei vechi", Odessa Geographical Society, 1837 (translation from Russian, 1986)

 

[purplephoton]

The 1240s gives context since when the Tatars are in this area 1240 and where the Romanians were (in the hills and port cities) when the Tatars were in these areas.

It does not say that Romanians were there in 1240. It says that 1) Tatars settled there after 1240, and 2) at some time, Tatars inhabited the steppe while Romanians inhabited the hills and cities (without saying when exactly that time was).

It is impossible to suggests that it happened after that chronologically because when speaking of states goes to 14th century, 15th century, then when switching to talking about population goes down to 1240.

This is normal English grammatical structure.

I'm just gonna leave this here.

Point is, source is confusing at best and irrelevant at worst, with no way to ascertain which (hint: it's the latter) and no sources of its own mentioned. If you want to prove that Romanians were there in 1240 (or in 1337) - which is entirely possible - find a better source.

 

[Zeprion]

It does not say that Romanians were there in 1240. It says that 1) Tatars settled there after 1240, and 2) at some time, Tatars inhabited the steppe while Romanians inhabited the hills and cities (without saying when exactly that time was).

I'm just gonna leave this here.

Point is, source is confusing at best and irrelevant at worst, with no way to ascertain which (hint: it's the latter) and no sources of its own mentioned. If you want to prove that Romanians were there in 1240 (or in 1337) - which is entirely possible - find a better source.

The words "at some time" do not exist in that text, they are simply added by you right now.
So: 1) Tatars settled there after 1240, and 2) Tatars inhabited the steppe while Romanians inhabited the hills and cities.

If Tatars settled after 1240, and they inhabited the steppe while Romanians inhabited the hills and cities. When exactly that time was? after 1240.

Either way:

Histoire de Moldavie

Histoire de la Moldavie (principauté) Moldavie Région historique 500 ans entre 1359 et 1859

fr-academic.com

The formation of the Moldovan Voivodeship​

In 1247 , the Diploma of the Knights of St. John describes a Wallachian voivode east of the Carpathians , tributary to the Tatar Khan of the Golden Horde . In 1277 , while the voivodes Litovoi and Bărbat were fighting for their autonomy , the Moldavians of northern Moldavia ( knesate of Onut , near Hotin ) came into conflict with their Ruthenian overlords in the neighboring principality of Galicia . Those of southern Moldavia , on the other hand ( knesate of Bârlad ) remained faithful to their alliances with the Galicians and Hungarians , who helped them defend themselves against Tatar raids .

The retreat of the Tatars from the Golden Horde created more favourable conditions for a process of unification of the cnesates . In the early years of the 14th century , German chronicles mention a country of the Wallachians ( Wlachenlant ) led by a voivode in the north of Moldavia.

Moldavia in the 15th century , by Georg Reychersdorffer
In the 13th century Moldavia was a federation of " cnesates " ( vassal duchies of Galicia and / or Hungary ) : Onutu - Hotin , Străşineţ , Baia , Neamţu , Soroca and its troglodyte monasteries , Hansca , Aski ( today Iaşi or Jassy , which takes its name from Iasses ) and Bârlad . Hungary was also present in the future Moldavia with the Csangos settlers , near the Siret River , and posted garrisons on the path of the Tatar invasions : this is the origin of toponyms such as Miclăuşeni ( Miklósfalu ) , Orhei ( Varhély ) , Chişinău ( kis - jenő : the small spring ) or Ciobruci ( Russified form of Ciubărciu , from csupór , the churn ) . The trade route along the Siret , which connected northern Europe to the mouths of the Danube , played an important role in the economic and political development of these territories . The cities Moldavian lands developed , including Baia ( civitas Moldaviae ) , mentioned in the 14th century as a fief of Dragoş de Bedeu , a voivode from Maramureş , vassal of the King of Hungary , Louis of Anjou . The latter had organized this fief in the basin of the Moldova River , following an expedition in 1343-1345 to the east of the Carpathians , with a view to strengthening Hungarian influence against the Tatars and the Galicians .

But the Moldavians united against Dragoş and preferred Bogdan of Dolha , also a voivode from Maramureş but opposed to Hungarian suzerainty . After several years of guerrilla warfare , in 1359 , Bogdan was recognized by the Moldavians as prince in place of Dragoş 's descendants , who had to return to Maramureş . The city of Baia became the capital of the federation in 1359 under the scepter of Bogdan , now called Bogdan I the Founder ( Bogdan Întemeietorul ) . This federation of cnesates then became a Voivodate governed by Voivodes , while the former cnesates became counties ( ţinuturi ) , governed by the great boyar families .

This grouping in the 14th century of the Moldavian cnesates located between the Carpathians , the Dniester and the Black Sea , vassals of Galicia or the Tatars in the 13th century , is parallel to that which took place in neighboring Wallachia , whose cnesates were vassals of Hungary . All these small duchies had taken up the colors ( gold and sinople with six bands ) of the " Regnum Valachorum " ( 1186-1261 , founded by the Deleanu , Caloian and Asan dynasties in present - day southern Romania , Bulgaria and Macedonia ) of which they considered themselves the heirs [ 1 ] . First called Bogdania or Bogdano - Wallachia , the principality of Moldavia extends from the Carpathians to the Dniester and appears on the map of Europe as a sovereign country .

The Hungarian King Louis I the Great did not willingly give up his sovereignty over the Moldavian country east of the Carpathians , and what had happened in 1330 in Wallachia was repeated in 1364-1365 in Moldavia . Louis I of Hungary organized an expedition to subdue Moldavia and replace Bogdan , but he did not succeed , the Moldavian state having become economically consolidated , better organized politically and militarily , and increasingly developed demographically .

 

[purplephoton]

Thus, according to this French encyclopedia:

- In 1247 , the Diploma of the Knights of St. John describes a Wallachian voivode east of the Carpathians , tributary to the Tatar Khan of the Golden Horde. (So we have 1 Vlach ruler mentioned, but not named, in 1247, in Moldavia)
- The Moldavians of northern Moldavia (knesate of Onut , near Hotin) came into conflict with their Ruthenian overlords in the neighboring principality of Galicia. (So we also have Onut and Hotin as "the Moldavians" described here)
- Meanwhile, those of southern Moldavia, on the other hand ( knesate of Bârlad ) remained faithful to their alliances with the Galicians and Hungarians , who helped them defend themselves against Tatar raids. (So 1 more Vlach ruler in the south of Moldavia at Barlad)

These are before Dragos and Bogdan.

- In the 13th century Moldavia was a federation of " cnesates " ( vassal duchies of Galicia and / or Hungary ) : Onutu - Hotin , Străşineţ , Baia , Neamţu , Soroca and its troglodyte monasteries , Hansca , Aski ( today Iaşi or Jassy , which takes its name from Iasses ) and Bârlad.

But the Moldavians united against Dragoş and preferred Bogdan of Dolha , also a voivode from Maramureş but opposed to Hungarian suzerainty . After several years of guerrilla warfare , in 1359 , Bogdan was recognized by the Moldavians as prince in place of Dragoş 's descendants , who had to return to Maramureş . The city of Baia became the capital of the federation in 1359 under the scepter of Bogdan , now called Bogdan I the Founder ( Bogdan Întemeietorul ) . This federation of cnesates then became a Voivodate governed by Voivodes , while the former cnesates became counties ( ţinuturi ) , governed by the great boyar families.

Notice it says the Moldavians.

Now we're talking.
Besides the fact that "This grouping in the 14th century of the Moldavian cnesates... is parallel to that which took place in neighboring Wallachia" does not mean "In the 13th century Moldavia was a federation of " cnesates "", this is actually useful info.

Another thing you might want to look into is

TOPONYMY AND ETHNIC REALITIES AT THE LOWER DANUBE

It suggests that Southern Moldavia had a Romanian population until about 1000AD; I don't see why a few of them couldn't have hung around until 1337.

 

[purplephoton]

If Tatars settled after 1240, and they inhabited the steppe while Romanians inhabited the hills and cities. When exactly that time was? after 1240.

After 1240, but not necessarily before 1337. It could, for example, be referencing 1440, which is also after 1240.

 

[ArVass]

Anyway, has anyone here been watching Arcane?
It's so peak, I strongly recommend it

 

[Azgabeth]

Anyway, has anyone here been watching Arcane?
It's so peak, I strongly recommend it

Season 2 is the definition of fell off.

Too many plotholes.

 

[ibvfteh]

I guess this must be the source?
C. Stamati, "Despre Basarabia și cetățile ei vechi", Odessa Geographical Society, 1837 (translation from Russian, 1986)

The source is too far to be the same one

But I still tried to look into it. And here @Zeprion I would love your help. Unfortunately, I can not find this article.

Only citations of it like here

translation

The famous philologist also quotes the writerConstantin Stamati who, in a work inRussian ba, entitled About Bessarabia and its fortressesold and published in the magazine of the Imperial Society ofhistory and antiquities of Odessa (1848) [Stamati1992, 459], mentions the row of slabs of wool-ga Chisinau, which he says are called byinhabitants of the Bâcu River Gorges. They start at the riverPrut, I pass through the forests of Căpriana, cutting the whole wideBessarabie: "We can say without any shame thatthe construction called Cheile Bâcului cut in twoparts of Bessarabia" and passed through the place calledThe Bâc gorges from one bank to the other of the Bâc river[Hasdeu 1893, 2798]. The construction was so bigso that it impressed the peasants who called zi-dul as being "of the devil". More than that,Hasdeu believes that, in the charter of Alexandru theGood from 14202, the word "gradişte" which marked onthen the northern part of the settlement in the current areato the city of Chisinau, he was referring precisely to the constructionCheile Bâculu, which was a mulberry, a long wall ofblocks. This would mean that the giant mur awas built by "a steadfast nation, in course ofmany years, in Bessarabia from the bottom of Bâc to the mouthsDanube" [Hasdeu 1893, 2800].

I can't find anything regarding both port cities and Romanian population. Everywhere this source is quoted, it used to describe castle structures not populations.

The words "at some time" do not exist in that text, they are simply added by you right now.
So: 1) Tatars settled there after 1240, and 2) Tatars inhabited the steppe while Romanians inhabited the hills and cities.

If Tatars settled after 1240, and they inhabited the steppe while Romanians inhabited the hills and cities. When exactly that time was? after 1240.

After 1240, but not necessarily before 1337. It could, for example, be referencing 1440, which is also after 1240.

So please quit fighting over unfounded claims. It is worded awfully. It should be proven and not argued. Look at the source, and if this is true, It should be somewhere in the text. I have failed to find anything about those claims in other sources, but I lack knowledge of Romanian.
Arguments about wording is exactly why the source should be used instead of copypaste from Wikipedia.

 

[ArVass]

Season 2 is the definition of fell off.

Too many plotholes.

Definitely wouldn't say that. The narrative is not as tight as in season one, but certainly wouldn't say "fell off" and would even argue about "too many plot holes"; what holes, exactly?

 

[Polesie Admiral]

@Pavía idk if I'll ever get an answer on this thread, but are there Jewish pops anywhere else in the balkans except for Hungary and Byzantium(which were confirmed)?